A Blank Check for War

Why did the President do an about face and suddenly decide to let Congress vote on intervening in Syria?

It was the polls that did it: only nine percent of the American people support a bombing campaign. The number goes up somewhat if it is proved the Syrian government is responsible for the poison gas attack at Ghouta, and yet still a majority opposes US intervention even in that case.

The Washington know-it-alls invariably disdain the public’s ability to judge
the lofty geopolitical and moral concerns of the political class, and they are
uniformlyhorrified by the President’s concession to the hoi polloi – but in
the end all politics is local. What determines US foreign policy has little to do with events overseas, and everything to do with the reaction to those
events here in the good ol’ US of A. In the face of massive public opposition to any US meddling in the Syrian snake pit, the White House wants the Republicans
to at least partially own this, lest the political fallout for the Democrats is too much bear alone.

Americans are in an "isolationist" (i.e. commonsensical) mood. After being lied into war in Iraq, and faced with the prospect of what can only be characterized as a defeat in Afghanistan, a recent Pew poll determined that they overwhelmingly favor a foreign policy of "minding our own business" – as opposed to the political elites, who just as lopsidedly favor a policy of global policing.

This elite-populist divide has been ongoing for some time, but it has never been sharper than right now: an economic downturn coupled with the anti-climactic end of the Iraq war, has the public utterly opposed to another Middle East crusade.

Washington’s answer to this is to turn up the volume of the war propaganda machine: and the legacy media, ever government’s faithful servant, has obliged with endless streams of crying Syrian refugees and "discussions" of the issue amongst pro-war talking heads. The only anti-interventionist voice allowed on air to date has been Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), the libertarian Republican whose presidential aspirations are the stuff of Karl Rove’s worst nightmares. Faced with David Gregory’s parroting of the State Department line on "Meet the Press," Sen. Paul skewered John Kerry’s eagerness to pull the trigger:

"What I would ask John Kerry is – you know, he’s famous for saying, ‘How can you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?’ I would ask John Kerry, how can you ask a man to be the first one to die for a mistake?"

Ka-pow!

The lumbering goonish Kerry, with his over-tanned face wrinkled by perpetual perplexity, is a singularly unappealing spokesman for the War Party. This is a role properly belonging to the President, but for some reason Obama is abstaining, leaving Kerry and the media’s laptop bombardiers with the burden of convincing a solidly antiwar public. Perhaps this President doesn’t want to go down in history as the first African-American George W. Bush.

Commentators are puzzled by the curious sequence of recent events: Kerry goes on television and gives every expectation of an imminent American strike on Syria – with the President coming out two days later averring he hasn’t yet made a decision. This sends Kerry scurrying out into the klieg lights once again, with an even more forceful statement – and the media, citing various administration leakers, reports it’s not a question of if but only of when. By the end of Labor Day weekend for sure!

The real shocker came when the President –after a 45-minute Rose Garden stroll with his chief of chief – came back at the Kerryites with the startling announcement that, yes, he had decided to strike – and to seek a vote in Congress.

This game of public relations ping-pong should make us all sit up and wonder
who is in charge in Washington. The spectacle of dueling expectations indicates
a real struggle within this administration, with powerful elements on the left
as well as the right demanding we rush to war.

Although we don’t have any definitive account of the internal wrangling preceding the President’s decision, what we might call the Power faction – on account of the new UN ambassador’s championing of the "responsibility to meddle protect" doctrine – wanted the President to forget Congress and usher in autumn with some good old shock-and-awe. According to these folks, it’s a "humanitarian" intervention and for that we don’t need anyone’s permission: this is the common ideological thread linking the "progressive" national security Democrats with the neocons in the GOP.

On the other hand, one imagines it was the political people who caviled at the mere thought of another intervention just as plans for the Clinton Restoration are getting underway. That poll showing nine percent support US involvement in Syria must have had them frantic. As for the Pentagon, they’ve been against it from the beginning, with joint chiefs head honcho Gen. Jack Dempsey going public in his opposition to military intervention well before the Ghouta incident.

This President, who has successfully resisted constant calls for intervention
for over a year, finds himself besieged by a political class intent on war –
and a chorus of war cries from our Middle Eastern and European allies, who are
chafing at the bit to divide up the Syrian spoils. It’s almost as if he knows what he’s doing is quite wrong – and more, that the case for linking the Assad
regime to what happened in Ghouta is farlessairtight than his Secretary of
State is claiming. That case is built on alleged signals intelligence picked
up by the Israelis – a source of much of the bogus "evidence" for
Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent WMD. Whatever the level of the President’s personal
confidence in the intelligence presented so far, what’s undeniable is that Obama
is asking the leaders of both parties to own this, to take responsibility come
what may – because he knows what’s coming.

Obama has given himself an out – and, in his imperial magnanimity, he’s given us an out, too. By putting this up for a vote in Congress, he’s giving
us the opportunity to do what the American public haven’t had the chance to
do since the long-forgotten days of Harry Truman – and that is to weigh in on
the vital question of war and peace. It was the pygmy from Peoria who set the
horrible precedent of taking military action without congressional approval
when he sent US GIs into the Korean meat-grinder, a misbegotten war that ended
in stalemate and continues to haunt us to this day. Ever since then, Presidents
have ignored the clear constitutional mandate given only to Congress and ordered
troops into battle willy-nilly. A President backed into a corner has returned
this right to Congress – a post-Truman precedent we must fight to preserve.

Right now, however, it is absolutely imperative that you call your congressional representatives and register your opposition to this ill-considered and dangerous adventure. Because even if you think the Assad regime is responsible for the poison gas attack, and even if you believe he deserves some sort of punishment to be delivered by us, the proposed authorization for the use of military force is very broad, allowing for a wide range of actions far beyond the "limited" strike promised by the President:

"a) Authorization. – The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to –

"(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

"(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons."

This authorization has neither geographical nor any practical limit: it could send US troops into Lebanon in search of sarin gas allegedly transferred to
Hezbollah. It empowers the President to act anywhere in the world against any
state or non-state actor provided some tenuous link to Syrian WMD can be established.
It could easily be invoked as justification for moving against Iran – after
all, the Iranians are aiding and abetting the Assad regime, and are therefore
enabling the use of such weapons. Furthermore, the resolution clearly does not
rule out US boots on the ground.

In short, the proposed authorization is a blank check, one that could and will be used to justify a gradual escalation of the conflict into an all-out military campaign bent on regime change. This is already the announced goal of the US government: Hillary Clinton, during her tenure at the State Department, declared "Assad must go," and now Washington is making good on its implied threat. Kerry and Clinton have long argued for arming the Syrian rebels, and now phase two of their regime change operation is kicking in.

The vaguely-worded text of this war resolution should be enough to scare off even those members of congress who might be inclined to vote for a more limited authorization. Sen. Paul gives it a fifty-fifty chance in the House of Representatives, but given the wording I’d say more like forty-sixty. This is one battle the peace camp can win – but only if you act.

I know many of my readers are skeptical every time I ask them to call
their congressional representatives. They may have a point, but I would
argue that this time it’s imperative, both morally and politically. Contrary
to popular belief, it does have an effect – especially in this particular instance.
These people are politicians: they not only want to win reelection, they want
to be liked. The prospect of another war is deeply unpopular, and they know
it. By hammering this point home, a flurry of calls is bound to register in
their minds as a sign to run for cover. They’re already wondering: if this turns
out badly, and I’m on the record supporting it, do I really want to go there?
Your calls will increase their doubts.

Congress, at the behest of the Israel lobby, passed a series of anti-Syrian resolutions nearly unanimously, and nobody noticed: now the President is handing them the control panel and giving them the option to press the red button. It’s a masterful bit of political jiu-jitsu – and we who want to stop the rush to war must take full advantage of it.

It’s Labor Day weekend as this is being written, and congressional offices
will be open and taking calls on Tuesday. That’s
the time to call. Remember to be brief, and be polite.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here.
But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often
made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

Author: Justin Raimondo

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].

Justin, encouraging citizens to engage more with the mechanics of democracy is to be applauded. We do have power and all we need to do is to use it on politicians who tend to ignore us and hope we just go away!

Who will you ring today?

ghostofmh

The House should respond to Obama not with a vote on war but with a vote on impeachment.

John V. Walsh

Justin is right. Call your Congressperson. Be VERY firm.
Better go to his/her office and make the point.
Better still go with a delegation – preferably one with Dems, Republicans and Independents. And make it clear that a yay vote for Obama's war will bring a nay vote from your group in the next election.
Better still get someone to announce he or she will mount a campaign to replace said Congressman.
This is not a tea party. It is a fight, one with the gravest consequences for world peace.
Do it this week.
Time is short.

war for Israel

The “world government” is persued by the Globalists such as Kissinger, Rothschild, Brzezinski, George Soros where “greater Israel” in embeded in it. Kissinger has already said: Balkanization of Syria is desirable to keep Syria divided. The ‘greater Israel’ is based on ODED YINON Strategy which says for ‘jewish state’ to survive and expand, Israel must partition the regional states based on religious and ethnic divide to erect “greater Israel”. Iran, Syria, Sudan Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and other countries are targeted. Obama who was selected by the Zionist bankers and globalists as a president for “change” is using American treasure to fulfill this mission using False Flag Operation. His primary concern is the interest of “jewish state” NOT America. That’s why he is using the False Flag Operation, like in Libya, to wage another “humanitarian intervention. Now, seeking authorization where if given is a BLANK CHECK FOR WAR to serve Israel. Jack Goldsmith, the former Bush official: Syria resolution could authorize attack on Iran and Lebanon. Americans must stop Obama, a war criminal and servant of Israel from carrying out his mission.

Yinon protogol

The following video shows that Israel and ODED YINON Strategy is the reason behind these war to create 'kurdistan', 'Baluchistan', Barber', Asyrian, against Arabs for the interest of ISRAEL, so Israel can rule the region and laugh at the gullible Americans. Obama is no one except a war criminal who lies to impliment zionist plan for Israel in exchange for a job at the WH. He must be arrested now and put on trial for thousands of deaths he is responsible for.http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2013/09/who-really-be…

Johnny in Wi.

Call your congressman and call your friends to call your congressman. Get out and demonstrate if you can. Lets end this insanity once and for all.

John Dowser

So is Justin implying Obama is at heart still antiwar but that as politician he might has barely one left?

As for Iranians and Hezbollah aiding and abetting the Assad regime, I've been wondering at the extent of this. Iran seems to have decided not to let the Assad government apparatus fail. They seem willing to go very far (and have Russia still on board somewhat) not to let the remainder of this broken state fall apart much further. They fear a total civil collapse and what the "opposition" would bring to the table (chaos and invitation of full Western "humanitarian" intervention, cannot "stand by" after all).

Any serious action against Syria therefore would become a military confrontation with Iran, the war they knew was coming, the war they perhaps even wanted or was seen as unavoidable. Part of the Syrian military command seems already administered by Iran or increasingly so. Assad might have less and less choice but excepting more help. Syria as Iranian vassal state is seen as threat to the US and Israel.

In that light we could conclude this is not about authorizing a rocket on some Syrian fortress. This is about a full scale wrestling for control with Iran. It's the conflict they've been all waiting for and seem to be preparing for considering the equipment being moved in place everywhere. And all the warnings from Israel (they are addressing Iran and Hezbollah). And this might also be the reason Obama goes to congress since he happens to know what this is about (not just punishment of Syria). He's concerned with legacy and if this conflict goes full scale and/or Syria becomes a slaughter house, it still remains his name up for graps.

eric siverson

Russia says a full blown attack against Saudi Arabia is in order for distributing Sarin gas to Syria I agree supplieing the gas to various terorists is actually much more damageing than using the gas. Putin should check with his Duma . He could probanly have the gas attack stopped before Obama can get congresses aprovual Thank God for Putin .This way we might also weaken some more 9 11 hi jackers too . Sould we encourage Putin on this Idea

notinmyname

Justin's analysis is interesting and right but he, in my view, misses the elephant in the room. He sort of mentions its foorprint but that's all. The elephant is Israel. The rogue state is desperate for the US and France and UK if possible to send its young people to kill and die for Israel. Reason: Israel's (and the US/UK axis's) proxy force fighting for zioUS/UK domination in the region is alQuaeda and other terrorist groups in Syria. The role of these terrorist organisations is not really to establish any sort of decent state but merely to wreck Syria as a first step to attacking Iran. The rebels are being steadily but surely defeated by the Assad forces. Another key factor in my view is that Obama knows that he is being pushed into things by the Israeli/jewish fifth column that completely runs US foreign policy,supported by jewish control of the media. Incredibly in the face of so much propaganda the US public is against another war on behalf of Israel.

Gail Storm

Kerry is more intimate with Israeli policy makers than Obama and has been for some time…well before being SOS…so it is conceivable Kerry is acting out on his own to some degree which explains some of the mixed messages. It is part of his m.o.

notinmyname

Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Unlike Putin, he is neither tough nor courageous and rather than face up to the Israeli-supporting termites that riddle the US democracy he is looking to the US public via Congress to bail him out either for or against war. This is still a deadly situation, should the public and Congress be duped into voting for an attack on Syria. The consequences could be horrific for us all. Should the US public vote against Obama will have some interesting conversations with the Israel firster fifth columnists that dominate the ruling political regime in the US.

outsider

But, Obama has said that he has decided to strike Syria even if he loses the vote in congress. If this scenario unfolds, it would be undoubtedly be an impeachable offense. Not only that, it would probably sink the Dems in the next election. Is Obama really willing to take such chances if congress votes 'NO?'

I think Obama is pulling a fast one here. His proposed authorization is purposely over-broad. I believe he WANTS Congress to respond with an authorization that's so limited, Obama can't be blamed if it fails to stop Assad. And if Congress refuses to issue any form of authorization, Obama can point his finger at those heartless Republicans who wouldn't let him save the lives of Syrian children.

Give him some credit. Hey, he got Obamacare passed, didn't he?

notinmyname

John Dowser, you make Israel sound the innocent party, but it's the rogue regime in Tel Aviv that is desperate for war, not fought by themselves of course, but by the hapless young of the western countries. Time to stop this.

Druthers

Not just a blank check but Blind Man's Bluff – and breaking the bank for war.

tippycanoe

Side note: Somewhat surprised that Justin of all people said, "the anti-climactic end of the Iraq war". Those renamed combat troops, ie. the Advise and Assist Brigades, have been driven so far out of sight and off the radar that even he thinks the Iraq war is over. July was the bloodiest, deadliest month for Iraqis since 2008 and that Vatican-sized embassy there still costs $4B a year to run before the paychecks go out. Reading the daily death counts on antiwar.com, it's fairly easy to see that war is far from over for the Iraqis.

The idea that people should contact their Senators and congressmen and women and call on them to vote against Obama's War Resolution is to encourage illusions in the "democratic" nature of the American state.

The Congress — dominated by millionaires and wholly in their pocket (and that of billionaires, as well) — is a completely reactionary institution complicit in all the warmongering of the last handful of Presidents. In any case, Obama has indicated that he has the right to attack Syria even if, unexpectedly, he loses the vote in Congress. (Clinton didn't get Congress's support for the 1999 bombing of the former Yugoslavia and yet that didn't stop him; he was impeached — though not convicted — not for that criminal war of aggression, but for getting a blowjob from a woman who wasn't his wife.)

Now the corporate-controlled media is revving up trying to browbeat the American public into acquiescence if not support for the war. The "opposition" to the war from certain members of Congress and the Senate is overwhelmingly of a tactical and not principled nature — how can we best pursue the global interests of the American ruling class, not if those interests are legitimate in the first place.

If, as seems likely, the resolution passes, another one will probably be introduced into the UK Parliament so that that country's ruling elite can "get in on the [criminal] action." The resolution there will virtually certainly not be voted down a second time.

In contrast to those (often old-line fascistoid elements) who insist that this is all about Israel, it is clear that what is really going on is a drive by US imperialism for world domination. After attacking Syria, Iran is next; Israel of course is opposed to Iran and doesn't want to have any serious regional rivals, but these wars are about more than that. If the Zionists (who are, undoubtedly reactionary, as is the Israeli regime) really controlled US foreign policy, then why is Obama pushing forward with the "pivot to Asia," which is really about forging alliances with China's neighbors and encouraging them to increase military spending and pursue territorial disputes against China. In other words, while US imperialism is about to attack Syria, it is also hellbent on preventing China's rise as a major global power. This, of course, has nothing to do with the government of Israel or Zionism or the Israeli lobby, as undoubtedly reactionary and militarist all those forces are.

Israel the enemy

{it is clear that what is really going on is a drive by US imperialism for world domination. }

Who is running world domination? The globalist like Rothschild family, George Soros, Rockefeller, Kissinger, Goldman sacks, Brzezinski and their mangers including the war criminals Obama, Clinton, S. Power, Sudan Rice, Kerry, George Bush and many more. But before establishing "world government", a "greater Israel" is required based on Oded Yionon . Is that too difficult to understand? Only closest Zionists are trying to confuse you to hide the dirty hand of Israel in these wars. Obama is serving the interest of Israel NOT America, where put him at the WH. Wake up before is tooooooooooo late.

There are two Americas, just as there are two Israels, two Bulgarias, two Romanias, two Japans, two Chinas, etc.

One is the America of the working-class ad ordinary people, who constitute the great majority of the population. The working class and the poor are the majority of all of the countries listed and, indeed, of the entire planet.

Then there is the America of the multi-millionaires and the billionaires — the capitalist ruling-class. This ruling class exists in other countries and is everywhere a tiny minority, accounting for the richest 1 % and the upper reaches of the richest 1% of the population.

The Israeli ruling elite, of course, couldn't give a rat's ass about the ordinary working-class people (be they Jews or otherwise) in "thei ownr" country and are undoubtedly looking for regional dominance via a war with Syria and then a war with Iran.

The American ruling class — which is somewhat larger than you indicated and includes not only a handful of old-money families, but the wealthy investor class as a whole (again, the top 1% and the upper reaches thereof, as well as their ALL the politicians in the executive, legislative and judicial branches) — is well aware that its own global economic standing is slipping and has been for about 4 decades now. Russia and China — and especially China — are seen as the main obstacles to the US ruling class's exercising of global hegemony and, as a step towards the attaining of this global hegemony, Washington seeks to attain total control over the strategically vital and energy rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia.

Israel's ruling class is, without a doubt, up to its eyeballs in criminality and blood, though it can't hold a candle to the American ruling class in this regard. Washington and Tel Aviv for the most part "rationally" collaborate in attempts to prevent (frequently very violently) the Arab masses from gaining control over their resources, their own destinies, their own territory and becoming genuinely independent. Thus, the Israeli ruling elite is not running US imperialism, but basically serves as its attack dog or gendarme in the Greater Middle East region.

Sam Lowry

"Then there is the America of the multi-millionaires and the billionaires — the capitalist ruling-class."

The sentiment is correct, but the details are flawed by devious design. The ruling class does not rule via 'capitalism' (when properly defined). The ruling class rules via government-enforced privilege. The ruling class outlaws competition in a myriad ways, forces people to buy their 'product' via taxation and regulation, enjoys access to artificial credit created by the central bank, and bailouts at our expense when their ponzi schemes inevitably collapse. Call it mercantilism or crony-capitalism, but it is not capitalism.

There are only two classes: the rulers and the ruled. The rulers have figured out that the way to maintain and expand their power is to artificially divide the ruled into 'classes' and set them at war with each other, promising government privilege to each. In the case of Marx, it was the bourgeoisie (honest business owners) against the proletariat (the honest worker). This myth has been exposed because it was used to erect the most murderous tyrannies in history. So the myth has been updated by Keynes. The new myth demonizes the honest saver. The new myth is that the mere act of spending creates economic prosperity. So when the political and financial elite spend money they create out of nothing, they are (so they claim) doing you a favor. Never mind the fact that your money invariably buys less, or that this is the cause of economic booms and inevitable busts.

This is the real reason the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, but thanks to the economic and political ignorance of the plebeian and their eagerness to place their faith in government, the rulers maintain and expand their rule.

Gail Storm

Kerry has sad hairs taken from victims by early responders were given to the U.S. government, which found evidence of sarin gas. Ok. Well if true and I were Secretary of State trying to make an argument before the world, I would have a copy of that test report on me 24/7 to show everyone. Wouldn't you? Why doesn't he? Is the victim's hair a matter of national security? Has there been some delay in typing up and printing out the test results? Have they not doctored them sufficiently or something….or, well, it is John Kerry we are talking about so maybe I'm wrong to call him out. He might just be that dumb as to not think about showing the evidence to people.

wars r u.s.

Even with actual evidence, it still wouldn't prove which side was responsible for its use.

Prinzowhales

Fearless Leader is simply stalling to allow more assets to be moved in for the strike and–possibly– for a new false flag outrage to be pinned on Assad…so as to rally the rest of his vile 'base' to unite with his Neo-Con/Neo-Liberal supporters and Zio-Nazi handlers….

Impeaching this animal will do little good…Biden is VP…as good a reason for not removing Obama as Cheney provided for not removing Bush.

Americans continue their silly pre-occupation with 'playing by the rules' as they are written by the Oligarchs and imagining that they can vote for the Establishment Parties while opposing the Establishment's policies…("You can't fix Stupid!") The Pauls provide a service to the Demopublican Duopoly by barking loudly against the policies while doing nothing to challenge the Duopoly's hegemony. Would you want to be in an organization that elected villains like Speaker Bonehead or Minority Leader Pelosi as leaders? These War Pig Parties are rotten to their very core! They are why we have wars, police states, malfeasance and misfeasance….

outsider

You are right about the 'Pauls.' I love Ron Paul, but he had a golden opportunity in the last election to withdraw from the presidential race and run as a third party candidate. As he had the name recognition that Gary Johnson didn't, he may have garnered ten percent of the vote and it would have greatly increased the profile of the anti-war, anti-interventionist crowd. As for Rand, don't look for him to leave the GOP even though he knows the Rove's of this world will never allow him to get their party's nomination.

Prinzowhales

Rand does some good things…BUT!…He was right there with BP in the beginning…He rides on the Right side of some important issues and some 'wedge' issues…The MSM will keep a spotlight on him…there has to be a reason for this…This banker media wants him to be the 'Obama' of the Right…promise them (the electorate) anything, but give them the SOS…

Obama has nothing to lose by following War Street and the Israel-Firsters…Syria will be in flames, a greater war will ensue and the Democrats have sufficient numbers in the Congressional Kennel to prevent any impeachment from coming to maturity.

If Rand were to become president or VP as a Republican, he would still face the Banker Congress…and the best he would achieve would be…the SOS…perhaps raising taxes to help pay off the ever-precious 'debt.'

If he were for real, the MSM would treat him like Cynthia (Who?) McKinney…

dahoit

Did Kerry get a face lift at Zionist central along with that dodgy dossier?Sheesh,my wife thought so also.Vanity,thy name is mud.

"Pygmy from Peoria"? Wasn't Truman from Independence, MO? Still a pygmy, though.

Strider55

You're right. According to Wikipedia, Truman was born in Lamar, MO, then lived in three small MO hamlets before moving to Independence at age 6. He never lived in Peoria or anywhere else in IL.

notinmyname

AJW from what I cann see US foreign policy is in the hands of the Israeli first fifth columnists that run US foreign policy. I can't see the distinctionyou are trying to make between US and Israel imperial interests. If the US is turning towards the East it is probably because the banker-leaches, many of whom are also zionist, have bled the US so dry they need to look further afield.

rwe2late

Beyond Bush,
a global blank check for war

"any components or materials" ?
which theoretically could pose
some imaginable "threat" to "allies and partners" (i.e. governments, individuals, or organizations) ?

Luc

(I am curious, why are you not posting my comments below. Has Justin’s ego become so fragile over the past few years that any little criticism is now prohibited? So much for Antiwar.com)
=========================================>>>>>

[moderator’s note: Justin’s ego has nothing to do with it. Feel free to criticize all you like. “The Jews. The Jews. It’s the JEEEEWWWWWS” isn’t “criticism,” and it’s not welcome here TLK]

Luc

What a pathetic reply. Not surprising. You are no moderator sir.

[moderator’s note: The evidence says otherwise – TLK]

To set the record straight, I corrected Justin’s analysis of what has actually transpired regarding Obama and Syria and I also show how pedantic his clarion call to his readers is to write to congress-critters (and expecting a halting of the nations trajectory towards yet another war crime). My referencing to “JEWWWWWS” as you call it was secondary to my primary comments … and what were they?
1) That Obama has been a captive president since his public thrashing by Netanyahou
2) That the Lobby’s power over Congress will ensure the war on Syria will go forward.

Do you deny these claims? Then have the courage to reply top them …

[moderator’s note: Nope. My job is to moderate comments, not respond to them. I do that on my own time, when I feel like it – TLK]

and have the courage to post my entire original post

[moderator’s note: It’s not about “courage,” it’s about policy. If your anti-semitic slurs were “secondary,” as you say, then feel free to post your comment without including them – TLK]

Luc

The truth is anti-lie except for a censurer. If what I wrote was "anti-Semitic" then what's stopped you from burning the entire comments section down and almost all 38 comments in it (as what I wrote pales in comparison to what others have written)?. No, this is about Justin's analysis being ridiculed for the amateurish claptrap that it is. This is about Justin's brittle little ego. TLK? hmm. Justin, is that you? ;-)

At this point in the timeline of what I am now calling "The 9/11 Arab Wars For Israel", anyone at all serious who trusts Israeli/Mossad intelligence as "proof" that America should go to war (again) after ALL the BS stories they threw around regarding Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, and now Syria – should be fired from his/her job protecting us and punched out for being such a gullible, ignorant, twerp. American life to these bastards is just as meaningless as the lives of the Arabs

It's not about chemical weapons, U.N. reports or congressional approval for military action. Does anybody doubt now that an air campaign against Assad is going to happen? Obama said that Assad must go and Russia and China are resisting, based on the bad faith Washington displayed in Libya two years ago. Yes, the Syria campaign will be "limited", meaning it will be "limited" to whatever it takes to completely smash Assad the same way they smashed Qaddafi in Libya. Try and stop us, that is the message this sends to Moscow and Beijing. If they have to use Al-Queda to achieve this end, then so what? Assad's successor will inherit a weak state incapable of governing the entire country, and, hence, even less capable of resisting Washington. Who knows, maybe we'll get a surprise out of this situation and the Syrian resistance coupled with support from Moscow will hold up.

Please do not attack Syria or the the government of Bashar Assad. Please do not rely on the “intelligence” provided to you by the Israelis as it has all been fabricated to lure you into military action against Syria. The rest of the world realizes this and are looking at you as a tool of the Israel Lobby.

When Justin says Obama took a 45-minute stroll with his "chief of chief," I'm assuming he actually meant Obama's chief of staff — the successor to Rahm "Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste" Emanuel.

Of course, Obozo might just decide to waste that much time hobnobbing with some football player from Kansas City.

Chris Randolph

I think we can do without the "policeman of the world" line, which credits the US with far more benevolent intent than it has. Unless of course we intend to infer a brutal, corrupt and stupid cop… in which case this is an apt metaphor.

Luc

LOL. I agree.

mojoe

I wonder why Obama, Kerry and McCain did not act so strongly when over 800 Egyptians were killed in 3 days by the Egyptian military? It must be because the military did not use WMD. So it is okay to kill your people as long as you do not use weapons deemed as WMD. We truly live in a crazy world. How much down the rabbit hole have we fallen? Will this administration be happy when the Rebel thugs begin to slaughter all the Christians in the Syria? The Rebels are everything we despise. Extremists who want Sharia Law and will stop at nothing to get it, but now we are supporting them. It makes no sense at all. While this is happening the whole world has forgotten about Egypt while the Egyptian military conducts their atrocities against the democratically elected party. What the west doesn't realize in the Arabic language the word Democracy translates to hold the chair. That is the Arabic version of Democracy hold the chair and do not give it up.

eric siverson

When the Rebels win and slaughter the christians in Syria . It will not make the US news . After Saddam was gone over half the christians disapeared .from Iraq . when 90% of the Christians in Kosovo disapeared did that make the US news . If you want factual news for world events you have to search more than just western news stories

Roger

Too bad you libertoonians have spent the last few years attacking real Progressives, instead of working towards an anti-war consensus. Looks like the war party wins again!

eric siverson

Roger this right here is the most anti war groupe I know of Although we seem to be filled with more anti semitism than i think is neccessary . This is it . I don't know what you mean by libertoons attacking the progresives . The progressives liberals left anti-war . obviously they were not really ant-war only anti neocon war . Obama is going to try to line the progressives up for libracon war which is really the same as neocon war . .It seems to me Roger if You again wish to be anti war You maybe will have to look more to Libertarian side again . SO we need to convice a few more cons from both the liberal and the consevatives side before we can takeover and have areal anti-war movement than can stop this madness